Cosmopolis (2012, David Cronenberg)

Cosmopolis unfortunately suffers from the same problem as David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method, a problem in that it's far too expository for its own good. Both films harbour high concepts and insights into the human condition but flatline through their execution; Cronenberg has always been a cerebral filmmaker but with his last two films his departure from the flesh and into the psyche has delivered waning results - the Canadian auteur's strengths have always come from showing, not telling. Some of Cosmopolis' problems may lie in the very make-up of its story but that can hardly be classed as a saving grace.

Here Cronenberg channels Don DeLillo's 2003 novel about Manhattan billionaire Eric Packer travelling  across town via limo for a haircut. Does he need a haircut? Probably not, but he wants one and that's a start in understanding the film's heavily laden philosophy on mankind's relationship with wealth and technology. Twilight star Robert Pattinson plays Eric to a tee, his eyes distant, his manor at times awkward but again compulsive and headstrong at others. Here's a man wrestling with who he is and what he means in the world, you can argue that Packer is a man full of hubris and narcissism but really he's self-loathing to the core and Pattinson conveys it convincingly. The film predominantly takes place inside the limo as we witness several meetings between Packer and his associates; each new character's role in the billionaire's life are never revealed but the problem of his business in grave decline is made clear. Each visitor is beckoned to the limo, even a doctor's appointment takes place there, as well as sexual gratification Eric has the world at his finger tips with his car acting as shield from outside dangers such as anti-capatalist riots and personal threats to his life.

Cosmopolis is full of talking heads, while most films are dialogue heavy this involves each entering character to spew forth an extended monologue full of philosophical ramblings. No one in the film comes close to human; interactions feel robotic and disjointed, while that may be the point it displays only one gear and operates on the same level throughout, outstaying its welcome after the first hour. It's clear the film's automaton like players have purpose and direct connections to its conveyed themes of technology and wealth destroying life's essence, but its an element that engrosses as a concept but not in practice. It's incredibly jarring when scenes are played out as if characters are reading DeLillo's words straight from the source, this is just one of many issues the film has in alienating its audience to an alarming degree. Whether this was Cronenberg's choice to make us as indifferent to the characters as they are to each other (at one point Eric seems impressed that he and his newly-wed are maintaining a conversation) is besides the point as we're left outside in the cold while a good film plays inside out of view. Even Howard Shore's atmospheric pulsating score is sparse, never allowing a consistent tone beyond the endless chatter and dead-air.

Cosmopolis oozes with intelligence and ideas, ones that could form a whole evening with discussion and basis for infinite analysis, but here lies the problem - the film is retrospectively engaging but one that refuses to be an engaging experience at all cost. Cronenberg leaves us with plenty to think over but is this enough from the creator of such intellectually visceral films like Videodrome and Naked Lunch? Films that used powerful visual metaphor where mere words weren't enough.

There are some sporadic uses of imagery that sticks in the mind; the anti-capatilist riots involving giant rats is a highlight, also the sudden violence acted on Eric by himself. His excessive wealth and the technological world has left him lifeless and dead inside and there is a sense of tragedy in a man who's only chance to feel is to blast a hole through his hand. This tragedy lies in a larger worldly sense than just Eric himself, everyone in Cosmopolis are archetypal constructs after all. These moments are few and far between and only hint to elements that could have been used for further effect from a filmmaker who never feared to go further than the rest. Whereas A Dangerous Method saw Cronenberg become an interchangeable oddity in a film he was born to make, there is no doubt that only Cronenberg could have made Cosmopolis, the kind of failure only a great director can make. 

In Cinemas This Week - Cosmopolis (2012, David Cronenberg)

This week a new film by David Cronenberg is released in UK cinemas; a cinematic event from one of the world's most renowned auteurs. Armed with a back-catalogue of notorious films his works are steadfast revealings of the human condition, unmissable unique films despite being hard pills to swallow at the best of times. Working from Don DeLillo's novel of the same name, Cosmopolis stars Robert Pattinson as a young billionaire travelling across Manhattan. His mission? a haircut, but the story looks to explore the state of modern civilisation and its next evolutionary step - transitions are Cronenberg's calling card and here he looks to reinvent Pattinson over night.


Last years' A Dangerous Method boasted some fine performances and costumes but only slightly rippled the waters, it was a well handled drama but Cronenberg's presence felt interchangeable. With his new film Cosmopolis we can only hope the director has rekindled some of his magic, the ability to show rather than tell. In his career he's shown audiences some of the most unforgettable sights; the chilling swimming pool orgy in Shivers (1975), James Woods pulling a gun out of his own stomach in Videodrome (1983), and the most unconventional of sex scenes involving Rossana Arquette's open wound in Crash (1996), these to name but a few. In A Dangerous Method - a fine drama though it may be - we were at the dawn of psychoanalysis with the difficult relationship that spawned it. As Freud and Jung wrestled over their thesis on Man's relationship with repression we were bombarded with lengthy conversations and letter writing aided by voice-over, not the cinematic tools you'd expect from Cronenberg despite the story harbouring his obsession over sex and repression. 

In the trailer for Cosmopolis (see below) there are some startling images in the short footage we're given, images that point to Cronenberg doing what he does best - creating visual metaphors. By channelling Don DeLillo's novel hopefully he has succeeded this time. The trailer also evokes some of the Canadian director's previous work, the slick but sterile high living of Robert Pattinson's Eric brings to mind the lifestyle of the Mantle twins in the modern gothic tragedy Dead Ringers (1988). With the novel/film being set almost entirely in a limo with sex overtly present how can one not think of Crash, the cult who's only source of sexual satisfaction stems from release through automobile accidents. Man's relation with technology and the next evolutionary step has been at the heart of the Cronenberg project and in Cosmopolis these themes seem to be evoked once again. Whether this latest offering will be a perfect melding of artist and material or another weak induction from one of cinema's greatest working minds, will have to be judged this coming friday. 

Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007)

David Cronenberg teams up again with Viggo Mortensen for this tale of crime and depravity in London's dark underbelly. The last time these two power talents converged we were left with the masterpiece A History of Violence (2005) which showcased a complex virtuoso performance from Mortensen and Cronenberg at the height of his directorial powers. Two years later and they're back with another crime thriller though on different soil this time; Whereas their previous outing picked apart the appearance of 'wholesome' American living to reveal a dark repressed violence that said just as much about the country's history as the characters themselves, their new Eastern Promises takes place on the mean streets of London charting a nurse's decent into the criminal lives of a Russian family and her relationship with their driver/bodyguard Nikolai.

As the film opens we see two acts of bloodshed, in one we see a man's throat slit in a murder that reeks of retribution. The scene is horrific and extreme for all the right reasons, throats are slit all the time in films but this one really hits home and makes you squirm. In the next scene a young pregnant girl collapses in a chemist in a pool of her own blood, she is rushed to hospital where she is cared for by nurse Anna (Naomi Watts). The girl tragically passes on but leaves with her a baby and a diary, Anna delves into the diary for contacts details but only learns of abuse. The diary leads her to a dangerous Russian family who Anna suspects of the abuse and eventual death of the young girl, she wants justice but finds she is in over her head.

As Anna's investigation goes on with the help of her Russian uncle (convenient yes?) the story does become muddled, unfocused, and unfortunately rather unengaging. The film is held together by strong performances and a supporting role by the always enigmatic Vincent Cassel as the trigger happy Joe Pesci to Mortensen's Ray Liotta. The film as a whole however is a mixed bag which doesn't add up to a whole lot once you realise it's built up of interesting moments rather than a story of thematic resonance. Perhaps it's because of the pure talent involved here and the near impossible task of creating another film as layered and thought provoking as AHOV that makes Eastern Promises feel like a disappointment. Cronenberg does not make mundane films, he always has something to say and this venture isn't one to be missed by all means; it feels like Cronenberg isn't painting on a big enough canvas this time round as what we'd hope was an epic absorbing crime drama turns into what can only be described as a TV pilot for a masterpiece we'll never get to see. Like Cronenberg's approach to M. Butterfly (1993) he refuses to let the film's setting take centre stage over the characters and whereas this is admiral (and worked in the example stated here) this time it was perhaps unwise to deny Eastern Promises the scope it needed.

Viggo Mortensen is the film's saving grace and he is phenomenal as Nikolai, he steals every scene he's in and owns not only the film's most memorable scene but one of the most memorable in all of Cronenberg's oeuvre. He is a completely absorbing screen presence, a fearless actor who shows us he's got more up his sleeve even this far into an already impressive career. Fearless is all that can be said of Mortensen after the film's central set piece is through - a brutal naked two on one fight takes places in a Roman Bath house all filmed in a single take. The violence is intimate, primal, and shocking - the naked tattooed flesh a reminder of how delicate life can be. As a character Nikolai features some of the hallmarks of a Cronenberg protagonist, a repression of self, a transformation both physically and mentally. The shots of Nikolai's tattoos that cover his entire body tell of his past and feel so undeniably Cronenbergian despite being of this world and completely factual.

Eastern Promises is far from a disaster as it's miles away from average fare, Cronenberg doesn't do average, he probably never will and I'd rather see Cronenberg on a bad day than most directors at their best. This isn't up their with his best work and feels like a missed opportunity that perhaps a sequel could one day save, we can only hope for this and that Cronenberg and Mortensen will continue to work together in the future.

A Dangerous Method (David Cronenberg, 2012)

A Dangerous Method - the new film from notorious canadian auteur David Cronenberg, his first since 2007's Eastern Promises, and his third uniting with Viggo Mortensen charts the relationship between psychologists Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) as they embark on the birth of psychoanalysis at the turn of the 20th century.

The story of Jung and Freud's fraught relationship and all their influence in the field of psychology is the perfect material for Cronenberg, you might even say he was born to make this film. So why is A Dangerous Method so unremarkable? Why is it such a sterile and underwhelming experience from one of the world's most exciting filmmakers?

With actors as assured and talented as Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel, and man of the moment Michael Fassbender you can expect high levels of muscle flexing from these renowned thespians. Even Keira Knightley as the woman who complicates Jung and Freud's lives further holds her own in what could be a career best, though her performance isn't without its problems. The screenplay, written by Christopher Hampton and adapted from the play The Talking Cure flits about too much and doesn't focus and develop an area; inside there is a good movie trying to get out but the film's voice is lost and unfocussed and in the end feels tragically underdeveloped. It also suffers like so many other films adapted from plays do, in that the translation from stage so often doesn't gel and what we're left with is a very self conscious piece of film making. When you see an actor performing on stage you are very aware you are witnessing a 'performance', in film the results are so much more immersive unlesss it has any traces of Brechtian theatre involved, i.e. Goddard's Vivre Sa Vie (1962) or more recently Michael Haneke's Funny Games (1997). A Dangerous Method feels like you're watching a play trying to be a film, the performances feel too knowing and so it's hard to fully divulge into the story despite the level of acting on show.

A Dangerous Method is very a much a part of the 'Cronenberg Project' in that it covers themes that run through his entire body of work - mainly sex and repression. Vincent Cassel's character speaks at length about sexual liberation and of course how can one not think of the chilling climax (no pun intended) in his debut Shivers (1975) . Even his more recent film Spider (2002) covers Oedipal complexes and trauma. So if Cronenberg is the perfect director for A Dangerous Method then why doesn't it suffice? It comes down to the fact that Cronenberg has always shown audiences images never imagined, these images were metaphors made flesh. In A Dangerous Method what we get is Freud and Jung developing psychoanalysis, an approach that was named The Talking Cure, and that is exactly what we get - a lot of talking. Normally at the end of a Cronenberg outing you have experienced something out of the norm, something only an auteur as unique and daring as Cronenberg could show us. Even in his crime dramas A History of Violence (2005) and the far from perfect Eastern Promises you know any other filmmaker wouldn't or couldn't go to the depths that Cronenberg went to, the emphasis he puts into the duality of mind and body. So its a shame that any number of directors could have made A Dangerous Method exactly what it is, or possibly even better.

Cronenberg's film isn't a failure, it's very much worth watching for the pure talent involved in it. What it is, is a disappointment that a film so unremarkable has come from such a remarkable director whose voice is normally so clear and un-compromised. Like the reputation of one of cinema's greatest visionaries, A Dangerous Method simply doesn't live up to its title.